[Page: S11985]---
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I stood in this place last Friday to warn Congress that we must not allow the administration to arrogate to itself the full authority to determine the trade policy of the United States, that we must not be asleep at the wheel as the one-sided trade jalopy goes rumbling down the fast track--the fast track. There we go again.
For what this Congress calls fast track, the administration uses the euphemistic term ``trade promotion authority.'' Trade promotion authority--it certainly has an innocent enough sound. It is a sound that is rather sweet to the ears--trade promotion authority. But lift up the cover of this euphemistic term, lift the cover, just peep a little under it, and you will find the real villain: fast track, fast-track authority.
So last Friday I stood in my place here and said to Congress that we must not allow the administration to arrogate to itself the authority to determine the trade policy of the United States, that we must not be asleep at the wheel ``as the one-sided trade jalopy'' goes rumbling down the fast track. I was referring, of course, as I say, to the administration's request, its wolf in sheep's clothing request for special authority to negotiate trade agreements that would not be subject to normal rules of debate and amendment.
I was also referring to the penchants of Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, in these more recent years to offer our trading partners unilateral concessions in exchange for the mantle of global leadership. As Jackie Gleason used to say, ``How sweet it is''--to wear the mantle of global leadership.
The news from Doha, Qatar, confirms my worst fears. According to the Wall Street Journal, our trade negotiator, Ambassador Robert Zoellick, ``led the way in making extraordinary concessions to developing countries,'' including ``agreeing to renegotiate America's anti-dumping laws.''
I quote a little further from the Wall Street Journal news story.
U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick faced a stark choice when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, last week: He could win either fast-track negotiating authority from Congress or a new round of trade talks.
To get a World Trade Organization deal, Mr. Zoellick would have to make concessions to poor countries that would so infuriate Congress that lawmakers wouldn't grant fast-track authority. To get fast track, which would allow President Bush to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend, he would have to
[Page: S11986]
On Monday, Mr. Zoellick announced his decision to a group of ministers and delegates at the convention center in Doha, where the WTO was meeting. The U.S., he said, would cede to their demands to allow negotiations on America's hated antidumping laws, which punish other countries that ``dump'' products on the U.S. market at below cost.
Before going to Qatar, Mr. Zoellick said he was fed up with Democrats' demands for more concessions on fast track. He pointed to his decision to allow a big steel trade case to go forward, which could temporarily shutter the U.S. market to some foreign steel. He said his fast-track proposal also addressed labor and environmental concerns of Democrats. ``At some point, people are going to have to decide if they can take yes for an answer,'' Mr. Zoellick said.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire story from the Wall Street Journal of November 16 be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1).
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, so you see Mr. Zoellick, according to the Wall Street Journal, ``led the way in making extraordinary concessions to developing countries,'' including ``agreeing to renegotiate America's anti-dumping laws.'' Among the big winners, according to the Journal, were foreign steel makers and big multinational manufacturers. The big losers? Guess. I will give you one guess. U.S. steel makers and auto makers are the big losers.
Our trading partners, who often protect their home markets by turning a blind eye to anticompetitive practices by their big manufacturers, hypocritically call our trade laws ``protectionist,'' and they find allies here in the United States among those who claim for themselves the banner of ``free trade.'' Let us be clear: the American people demand that the fruits of their labor be able to compete without fear of foreign predation. They want trade that is both free and fair.
Let us also clear away--once and for all--the cant about ``protectionism.'' Our antidumping law is based on a very simple requirement for foreign manufacturers. What is it? Do not injure producers in our market by selling below cost or charging less here than you charge in your home market. The plain fact is that foreign producers of certain products, such as steel and autos and lumber, dump in America year after year after year, and put all of their efforts into weakening our antidumping laws. Their home governments, whose markets are much less open than ours, work fist-in-glove with these predators.
Our countervailing duty law, which the Administration has also placed on the negotiating table, is no more protectionist than our antidumping law. The law is based on a very simple requirement for foreign governments: Do not seek trade advantages by subsidizing the production of merchandise that your companies sell in the United States. Hands off. If you do, we will apply an offsetting tax to the unfairly traded goods that come into our country.
Why should we permit our trade laws to be eviscerated by foreign interests? What possible rationale could there be for putting our antidumping and countervailing duty laws on the negotiating table? Is it to further distort competition to the disadvantage of U.S. producers?
Let me give you an example of what passes for a so-called ``legitimate'' trade dispute in the eyes of many of our trading partners. In many countries, government-owned steel companies have been the beneficiaries of massive subsidization over a period of decades. Without these subsidies, the steel companies would simply not exist in those countries. They would be gone with the wind. After pouring billions of dollars into a government-owned company, the foreign government then sells it off for pennies on the dollar--pennies on the dollar, or pennies from heaven. The newly privatized company, which wants to sell its subsidized overcapacity in the United States, then has the audacity to claim a ``privatization exemption'' from U.S. countervailing duties. Mind you, there is nothing in any agreement to which we are a party that gives privatized companies such an exemption. Nevertheless, under current international rules, the United States must fight like the dickens to apply countervailing duties in these situations. What will happen after we put our trade laws on the negotiating table?
In short, the United States must not capitulate, Mr. President, to these foreign predators. More to the point, Congress--the body which is closest to the people--must not cede its authority over foreign commerce to the Chief Executive.
The Framers of the Constitution did not cede that authority to the Executive, no. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority over such matters.
Let's take a look at article I, section 8, of the Constitution, which I hold in my hand. What does it say? Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power--
It does not say the executive branch; it does not say the President of the United States; it does not say that vaunted title: The Commander in Chief--
The Constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power ..... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations--
Aha, there it is. There it is in black and white. Read it and run.
The Congress shall have Power ..... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. .....
Well, you say, Congress can delegate certain authority. Well, that is true. But can it delegate the authority given to the Congress by the Constitution to debate and amend? And that is what we do. That is what we do when we support something like fast track.
So, Mr. President, the Constitution is what I have just read.
Let the Constitution, our Nation's shining glory, be our guiding light. Let us demand that our trade negotiators take a strong stand for American jobs and American values. All countries benefit from international trade, and all countries must share in the costs of constructing the framework of that trade.
Now, as I have said many times on this floor--I ought not have to repeat it--I am not suggesting that Congress get involved in the minutiae of international trade agreements. I am not suggesting that we inject ourselves into each little teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy tariff determination. Our trade laws, however, are not minutiae. They represent the sole hope for companies that are being picked apart by vulturous foreign trading practices.
Communities across America, all across the land--the East, the West, the North, and the South--are waiting to see whether we are strong enough to stand up for their interests--their interests--the people's interests.
They are waiting to see whether the United States will once more be duped by those whose unabashed--unabashed--motive is to gut the framework of fair trade. If we stand by the Constitution--if we stand by the Constitution--that magnificently balanced instrument of the people, by the people, and for the people, we will not fail our constituents. As well, we will herald a trade policy for the new millennium, a trade policy according to which we do not sacrifice hard-working Americans at the altar, at the altar, at the ``Golden Calf,'' if you please, of nebulous foreign policy objectives, a trade policy that is based on the pursuit of mutual benefit among sovereign nations.
Now, Mr. President, that is not protectionism. If it is, then I am for it. That is not protectionism. It is a policy based on the traditional principles of national sovereignty as well as the absolute respect of each law-abiding nation for every other such nation. It is a policy the American people expect, and it is one that we--the elected representatives of the people--have a constitutional duty to uphold.
May God bless America. But in doing so, may God bless the Constitution of this Republic. Thank God for that Constitution. I hope the administration will read it over the Thanksgiving holiday. It might be well if we ourselves all read it again.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit I
Politics & Policy
Zoellick's Trade Concession Wins WTO Talks But Could Cost Bush Fast-Track Authority
WASHINGTON.--U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Zoellick faced a stark choice when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, last week: He could win
[Page: S11987]
To get a world Trade Organization deal, Mr. Zoellick, would have to make concessions to poor countries that would so infuriate Congress that lawmakers would't grant fast-track authority. To get fast track, which would allow President Bush to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend, he would have to make concessions to liberal Democrats that would so anger poorer countries that they wouldn't open new trade talks.
On Monday, Mr. Zoellick announced his decision to a group of ministers and delegates at the convention center in Doha, where the WTO was meeting. The U.S., he said, would cede to their demands to allow negotiations on America's hated antidumping laws, which punish other countries that ``dump'' products on the U.S. market at below cost.
Bill Klinefelter, the United Steelworkers of America representative who sent to Doha to keep Mr. Zoellick from negotiating on U.S. antidumping laws, was furious. Mr. Zoellick, he said, could ``kiss fast track goodbye. He's never getting it now.''
The irony is that without fast track, Mr. Zoellick won't be able to conclude the trade talks launched at the WTO meeting. Trade envoys hope to wrap us the talks in three years, though few really believe they will finish that early.
Thursday, lawmakers were still digesting the details of the Doha agreement. Republicans praised it and said they still plan to try to get fast track. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R., Ill.) said he still hopes to bring fast-track authority to a vote the week after Thanksgiving. But there is little chance of passage without some support from moderate Democrats--and few were cheering.
Mr. Zoellick's fast-track proposal ``was not tenable before Doha, and it's even less tenable after Doha,'' said Rep Sander Levin, (D., Mich.) the only lawmaker who attended the WTO meeting.
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D., Mo.) told reporters Mr. Zoellick's concessions were ``negative in terms of getting agreement on'' fast track. ``They put on the table for negotiation our antidumping laws,'' he said. ``We are in the middle of a steel crisis now in terms of losing sales and losing capacity in our steel system.''
The U.S. steel industry is one of the biggest beneficiaries of antidumping laws, so lawmakers from steel states don't want to see those laws weakened. Mr. Zoellick's decision ``is a stunning betrayal of America's workers,'' said Rep. Peter Visclosky (D., Ind.) vice chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus. ``Putting our trade laws on the table flies in the face of fair trade and totally disregards the expressed will of Congress that our trade laws not be negotiated away.''
Before going to Qatar, Mr. Zoellick said he was fed up with Democrats' demands for more concessions on fast track. He pointed to his decision to allow a big steel trade case to go forward, which could temporarily shutter the U.S. market to some foreign steel. He said his fast-track proposal also addressed labor and environmental concerns of Democrats. ``At some point, people are going to have to decide if they can take yes for an answer,'' Mr. Zoellick said.
Some moderate Democrats defended Mr. Zoellick's concessions on steel and said they still hope to salvage fast track. ``The challenge is making sure everyone understands the provisions,'' said Rep. Calvin Dooley (D., Calif.).
In Doha, Mr. Zoellick steadfastly protected America's textile industry. He repeatedly turned down demands from India and Pakistan that the U.S. import more clothing. That decision was looking almost fortuitous, but it clearly won't be enough to bring about converts on fast track: Burlington Industries Inc., Greensboro, N.C., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and blamed it on cheap imports. Burlington Chief Executive George W. Henderson specifically cited the U.S. government as a culprit, saying it used the textile industry as a bargaining chip in international relations.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
END